Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue

Abstract

BackgroundHealth research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further research. Historically, review panels have focused on the scientific excellence of applications to determine which should be funded; however, relevance to societal health priorities, the facilitation of evidence-informed practice and policy, or realizing commercialization opportunities all require a different lens.DiscussionWhile experts in their respective fields, grant reviewers may lack the competencies to rigorously assess the KT components of applications. Funders of health research—including health charities, non-profit agencies, governments, and foundations—have an obligation to ensure that these components of funding applications are as rigorously evaluated as the scientific components. In this paper, we discuss the need for a more rigorous evaluation of knowledge translation potential by review panels and propose how this may be addressed.ConclusionWe propose that reviewer training supported in various ways including guidelines and KT expertise on review panels and modalities such as online and face-to-face training will result in the rigorous assessment of all components of funding applications, thus increasing the relevance and use of funded research evidence. An unintended but highly welcome consequence of such training could be higher quality D&I or KT plans in subsequent funding applications from trained reviewers.

What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis

“…The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effect of reviewer training on the quality of peer review for publication [21]. This was included here as the need for more RCTs in grant review research and in particular better training of reviewers has been voiced by others [33,70,71]. The BMJ trial showed that the efficacy of training may depend on its modality, as reviewers who were randomised into receiving training via a self-taught electronic package, and not a taught workshop, showed significant improvement in review quality (identifying more errors in manuscripts and rejecting more manuscripts for publication).…”

Six Public Policy Recommendations to Increase the Translation and Utilization of Research Evidence in Public Health Practice

“…Training could also be provided to funding reviewers to enhance their competencies in assessing the knowledge translation component of funding applications. 46 Recommendation 5: Public policy should fund dissemination costs beyond peer-reviewed journals through full funding of knowledge translation activities so that research findings are communicated and disseminated to reach practitioners and decision makers. One of the main barriers to the translation and utilization of research evidence in public health practice is a disconnection between how researchers communicate and disseminate their findings (ie, peer-reviewed publications/academic journals and conferences) 47 and how practitioners and decision makers learn about the latest research evidence (eg, webinars and workshops, individual communication, social media).…”

“…Training could also be provided to funding reviewers to enhance their competencies in assessing the knowledge translation component of funding applications. 46…”

Research Integrity and Peer Review—past highlights and future directions

“…In the peer review section, several articles published have focused on diverse aspects of the peer review process. These span a deeper dive into how grant review panels work [ 33 ] and the need for support for peer reviewers, particular in areas of training [ 34 , 35 ] and mentoring [ 36 ]. Other topics include a study of reviewer recruitment in the field of ecology [ 37 , 38 ] and research into the views of junior hospital doctors on their understanding of models of peer review [ 39 ].…”